create_spline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none. It does not say what layer/unit defaults apply, whether a document must be open, what coordinate space is assumed, or what the call returns. 'Control-point' is the only construction detail disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally efficient. But at this length it is under-specified rather than concise for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage leave the description as the sole source of context, and one sentence cannot cover it. An agent lacks defaults, return behavior, and coordinate assumptions needed to call this reliably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters, and it barely does. 'Control-point' loosely points at controlPoints, but unit, layer, and degree are never explained and the controlPoints format (min 2 points, x/y required) is left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a control-point spline entity'), and 'control-point' distinguishes it from a fit-point spline. However, it gives no differentiation from the many other create_* geometry siblings (create_polyline, create_arc, etc.), so an agent learns the type but not why to choose it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as create_polyline or create_arc, nor any prerequisites (e.g. an open drawing/project). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.